The opinion columns are suggesting it is either more or less likely, so that's not helpful. Just for the sake of it, let's consider if there was another referendum. The main argument against this is that it would diminish respect for politics (really? - seems the politicians of all colours are doing a fair enough job of that). The biggest argument from the leave camp is that it would turn voters away from democracy. Will it? If that was the case MPs wouldn't be bothered as that would make their jobs more secure, not less. In reality there is a potential for a lot of established MPs to be 'punished' by either side of the debate, but I can't lose much sleep over 600 jobs that will be replaced by new candidates when we're looking at thousands across the country that won't.

If there was a vote to leave, then that should be it regardless of split, I suspect; but if there is a marginal vote to remain I also suspect the leave group would push really hard for further referenda until they get the result they want. All I can say is that everybody who votes this time around, if it happens, can do so from a more informed position than last time. One of my major drivers last time to vote remain was the paucity of information about what Brexit would look like. Two years down the line I've got a fuller picture, and my vote won't change on the information provided.

Polls suggest that remain voters largely haven't changed their position but different polls suggest variably that some leave voters have changed their mind, other leave voters are suggesting they won't bother in a second referendum, and some polls have suggested leave support might increase. I'm saying polls, I'm actually parroting what I've read, so it might be just wishful thinking by whoever is being quoted in many cases.

There does seem to be some consensus that in the main that Brexit forced people to take hard sides and the aftermath, with all of the invective that came with it, seems to hardened a lot of people to stick with their view regardless of the evidence that followed. For me the critical part is those who didn't bother to vote last time due to apathy and those who weren't eligible to vote due to age are the main vote swingers. I can see a lot of campaign effort will be expended to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is registered and does vote. Hopefully the chaos of the last two years will force most of the apathetics off their arses - they might not vote the way remain or leave voters desire, but at least we'll have a fuller, more representative vote.

In a further referendum, the format and question / options could be hugely divisive. The principal fear I've seen in comments from Leavers is of a format that splits the leave vote between more than one leave option, but leaves Remain as one, thereby engineering a remain result. To get round that objection would presumably need either some algorithm around first and second choice or a two stage referendum.

I'm getting more confident that there will be a 2nd (well, 3rd really) referendum

I think there's something odd hidden in these legal papers, soon to be released

You're spot on, the precise questions are problematic, and hopefully with a 50% pass mark as before. Presumably, this would have to go through parliament, as with the 2016 Referendum. I can imagine the majority of MPs ("... the House of Commons ... has a natural remain majority" - Liam Fox, yesterday) would insist that "Remain" is on the ballot. I'd be very surprised if May's Brexit & no-deal Brexit weren't both on it, too (unless the moderate & right-wing Conservatives have got together - haha). A lot depends on how the Whips operate, on both sides

Objectively, I think there will be 3 options, simple decider, 50% pass

The question of who will vote is interesting. Some Remain votes are fed up with the whole issue, and will vote anything but "No deal"; Leave voters, though, tend to vote emotively & are less likely to change opinion. There are more younger voters, and they will likely get more motivated to vote Remain, while some older voters will have fallen off the register

I think "Remain" will win the vote

After that, I would hope that the real concerns of the Leave voters are addressed properly. Oh, and Climate Change, which has been largely ignored by govt for the last 2 years

Lets just say that a 2nd referendum takes place. It sounds like the leave vote may be reduced, but lets say that leave are still successful, but by an even smaller margin. Where does that leave the MPs who I think its fair to say are numerically in favour of remain.

where 'hard remain' means a complete return to our former full membership in name and deed, and 'soft remain' is exactly the same except that we pretend to have left just-a-tiny-little-bit, and the EU re-names itself 'The European-and-Great-Britain Union'.

I knew there were several ways of doing it, but hadn't realised just how many !

And, whoever decides the format, and however the result is calculated, there will be serious social problems (I think "discontent" doesn't begin to describe it)

I suspect TM is well aware of this, and it's probably why she's so against a 2nd referendum, and is trying to drive through what she perceives is a compromise

What she could do, though I don't think she's brave enough, is to interpret the 2016 vote as a mandate to evaluate Brexit, rather than blindly implement it. She'd have to pledge to resolve the various gripes that Leave voters have, such as renegotiate the CFP, be tougher on EU- and non-EU immigration, attract more employment to poorer areas, etc, etc. Then, she'd be able to argue to cancel Brexit relatively peacefully, and save her beloved Party

One option would be to leave Remain out. You could say we've already had that vote. This one could be just Deal or no Deal. Neither what I want but then choosing the lesser of two crocks of shit is often the way in politics...

I honestly think we should leave Laura Kuenssberg, Robert Peston and the Queen to sort it out.

That's actually one of the more sensible suggestions tendered so far.

A slightly related thought passed through my mind while reading the Adam Rieger link which Sir L kindly posted. If even an intelligent and (one would hope) impartial academic specialist admits uncertainty, and no possible democratic approach seems likely to be able to unravel the knot, maybe this is an opportunity for some demagogue to leap out of the darkness, seize power and simply impose their own solution.

I'm not suggesting they should, or that that would be a good thing. But it would be a solution, albeit an imposed one. If nothing else, in a confused situation, it would at least 'provide certainty'. Now, where else have I heard that phrase before? And a lost, bewildered population might be less hostile to such a coup than they would be in calmer and more certain times.

I have, genuinely, no idea where such a demagogue might appear from, or what shade of politics they might bear. None of the currently visible characters on the stage have the temperament or the ambition, or the essential backing of a small but ruthless clique of equally ambitious, determined and competent co-conspirators.

Forget Farage; he is a loner, a lightweight and an amateur. And forget Johnson, Rees-Mogg and other parliamentary figures - they don't have the temperament. Corbyn is obviously too old and too indecisive. But how about some much younger, more determined, far-left warrior? Or even someone neither of the left nor the right, but sideways - some kind of charismatic, benign, left-field loony? If he managed to resolve the Brexit conundrum and make our trains run on time, he could probably remain securely in power for the rest of his life.

It is probably too late at night and I have probably spent too much time reading sinister Ray Sullivan novels for me to be posting sensible ideas at present. And I desperately hope no such scenario unfolds. But if it does, and I 'disappear' as I am dragged off for 'questioning' remember you read it here first, and who wrote it.

I have probably spent too much time reading sinister Ray Sullivan novels

Interesting ideas in there Titus, but if you think Hotel California is sinister you probably should avoid Assassin. Although written long before Brexit was an idea let alone a noun, verb, adjective and synonym for clusterfuck, it is set in a UK that has effectively done what you're suggesting. Background isn't the EU, though, it's terrorism and the UK government has shut itself off from Europe and the rest of the world, Scotland is independent and Wales, while notionally independent, is essentially a vassal state. That could end up as one, admittedly extreme, outcome of Brexit. That book is sinister.

Thanks, t-m. But my next book will probably be another by Richard Dawkins. Takes a lot more intense study than simply enjoying bounding through a good thriller!
_ _ _

As for the post from someone who signed themselves as 'twat', which suggested a foreign takeover: I would regard that as unlikely. Think about it: if you were a foreigner and you wanted to take over some country as dictator, would you want take over this country?

Back to the thread, though. SL's link makes very interesting reading and as a mathematician I can neither argue against or provide a better alternative. What is clear is that approximately half of those who voted would like to stay and approximately half who voted wanted to leave. Unfortunately there's no consensus of what leave means.

Perhaps a pragmatic way is to halt Brexit, park it for now, but continue with studies and negotiations with the EU. Sort out the reality and then present the results to the country in a couple of year's time. Have an informed choice between staying - with the terms clearly available to all, or leaving with one negotiated and understood leave option on the table. Embed the new rules for referenda that have been drafted to address the issues observed in the last attempt - such as blatant lying (by any side) and social media abuse.

The latest YouGov on a 3 way basis splitting leave, and a Condorcet basis, with massively different results. Of course, as soon as more and more people start talking about the effect the the algorithm has, the harder it will be to agree on one - like boundary changes...

All a bit premature isn't it? It'd be hard for May to shoe-horn her deal into any 3-way referendum when Parliament dismisses it. Don't we really need to see what people think of her Plan B, if there is one?

Here's another poll, from Ipsos - opinion split all over the place. Given a failure of the withdrawal agreement in the Commons, there's pretty much the same support of 19-20% for no deal, renegotiating the deal and a second leave/stay referendum. Much lower appetite for a general election, referendum on the deal etc. So any of the given ways forward is going to be unpopular with 80% or more of the population...